People don’t like being forced to
purchase things they may not want, which is why over half of us are hoping that
the Supreme Court throws out the individual insurance mandate in President Barack
Obama’s health care plan. There’s also a worldwide rebellion brewing against
being forced to purchase expensive electricity produced by so-called
“renewable” sources, now being exacerbated by the availability of very cheap
natural gas from shale formations But, here in the U.S. there are some 30
different statewide “renewable portfolio standards” (RPSs) that also mandate
pricey power, usually under the guise of fighting dreaded global warming.

RPSs command that a certain percentage of electricity has to
come from wind, solar, geothermal, or biomass. Given that this power generally
costs a lot more than what comes from a modern coal or gas plant, your local
utility passes the cost on in the form of higher bills, which the various state
utility commissions are only too happy to approve in the name of saving the
planet RPSs generally do not include hydroelectric power, which produces no
carbon dioxide. It’s also much more predictable than solar or wind, and costs
about the same as the average for gas and coal combined. It’s not in the
portfolio standards because dams are soooo 20th century, and it isn’t a darling
of the green lobby, like solar, wind and biomass. But hydro can deliver more juice than solar
is ever likely to Nor do RPSs allow for natural gas. There are massive
quantities in shale formations around the country, and new horizontal drilling
techniques are releasing so much of it that it is now the cheapest source of
electrical power. If our
environmentalist friends were at all serious about climate change, they would
enthuse over it because it produces
significantly less carbon dioxide than an equivalent quantity of coal when used
for power generation. Instead, they are
horrified that cheap gas will destroy solar and wind Their worries are quite
well-founded. In November, NextEra
Energy, the country’s largest wind-energy producer, said it would develop no
new wind projects this year, as utilities sell cheaper gas power.

When are governments going to
learn that they ought to butt out of the energy business? RPSs that specify
certain technologies are essentially picking winners and losers based more upon
political pull than market logic.

One needs to look no further than
ethanol as a motor fuel, mandated by the feds.
Sold as “renewable” and reducing pernicious carbon dioxide emissions, it
actually produces more in its life cycle than simply burning an equivalent
amount of gasoline. It
also—unconscionably—consumes 40% of U.S. corn production, and we are the by far
the world’s largest producer of this important basic food The popular revulsion
against ethanol has succeeded in cutting its massive federal subsidy, of $0.54
per gallon, which ran out on Dec. 31.
But that doesn’t stop the federal mandate. Last year it was for roughly 14 billion
gallons from corn and it will be nearly 15 billion in 2012. By 2022, up to 20
billion gallons will be required — all from corn — unless there is a
breakthrough in so-called “cellulosic” ethanol, which, no matter how much money
the government throws at it, hasn’t happened.
Indeed, the largest cellulosic plant, Range Fuels, in Camilla, Ga., just
went bankrupt. The loss to American taxpayers appears to be about $120 million,
or about 25% of a Solyndra. Don’t expect Congress to zero the ethanol mandate
anytime soon. Farm country tends to be conservative on pretty much everything
except propping up corn prices, which is what ethanol mandates do Having seen
the ethanol debacle, will the states put solar and wind in their rightful
(small) niches by repealing the RPSs? Increasing utility bills with renewable
mandates is politically dangerous, and there is less and less political will to
subsidize and otherwise prop up energy sources and technologies that cost too
much Look for a movement in the many state legislatures that approved the
outrageous RPSs without asking people how they liked being forced to buy
something they don’t want. Or will cheaper natural gas and hydro be allowed in
the standards in the place of wind and solar? There is likely to be some
legislation introduced this year and a lot more in the future, as the U.S.
catches on to the great renewable energy scam.

As much as i feel this is spam, working in the energy industry, i feel this post is some form of this growing anti world government, illuminati, anti politic view growing on the internet these days.

Youtube.com
Now, when you look at things like, living expenses rising in most countries by 50% over 8 years, and minimum wage aswell as most salaries leaving no more than 20-38% disposable income left over, government's question the lack of growth in the economy, however even with renewable energy, supposed to be costing nothing to generate, we are still seeing increase in tax and bills.

Energy prices have increase in the uk ~8% already this year, down to a increase in production cost, and shipping cost.
These breakdown into.

I feel this would end up being a interesting discussion, because i can see why costs are increasing, due to more people being employed and more people earning more money, results in more money for business and tax.

What i can't understand is why we (those in private employment) are not seeing pay increases when costs are increasing directly caused by the private businesses that are struggling because people have no money to spend?

Is the increase in prices the direct effect of privatisation of utilities to offset government expenditure, and things like the UK Green Deal or Eco Discount ( More government offsets against private utilities) the reason for the price rise...

Is the government to blame for not being able to control its private enterprise, like banks and utilities the reason prices are going up?

Is private industries trend to look at its profits over customers the issue, Like the financial crisis or uks libor scandal?

Are households to blame for the people they votes fors decisions or acceptance of immense profits companies with little to show for it but new more expensive products that are rarely innovative?

I have moved this to cosmos as i would like to have a good geo political discussion on what people see for there kids, or their future when its looking like the poor are getting poorer and the rich have a risk of making themselves look as shallow minded as they are.

Im not intrested persay in politics, but i know it influences a lot, so ill accept it being discussed, however my point here is to outline what i feel is enlightenment to how the world is now viewing things, what's really going on and not asking the questions... they should, why should i pay for a gas line if i'm not using gas?. thats a valid point, in australia if you have a phone line for example your not using you don't pay line rental for it, unless you want to make phone calls from it.

I have lived and worked in the UK and Australia so i have a idea of what's going on in both, when i see australia and its NBN and its mad ideas that seem to mimik the rest of the world and with exports dropping it seems like its lining its self up for some hard times, i would be interested in a global discussion on this matter that in the end will affect us all.
It would be sad to see any country follow down the same path of cyprus with its austerity measures.Bbc.co.uk

NBN, Telstra, Private enterprise supported by governments that then can't control the beasts they create?

Please discuss in depth.

Ask questions, Find answers!
Power to the people!

Ps can't be bothered urling everything, however please google for yourself if interested and link to news articles you feel relevant to this discussion.

A very Interesting topic alright, especially an odd posting on a games DB site???
I work in Shipping & Energy so my perspective is that society is inter-linked; cost of anything goes up based on demand vs. wage increases as a result of greed/living costs vs. cost of supply based on wage increase. This is based on my own observations of a large floating micro-society producing 100mW.

TKAzA wrote:
Now, when you look at things like, living expenses rising in most countries by 50% over 8 years, and minimum wage aswell as most salaries leaving no more than 20-38% disposable income left over, government's question the lack of growth in the economy, however even with renewable energy, supposed to be costing nothing to generate, we are still seeing increase in tax and bills.

Energy prices have increase in the uk ~8% already this year, down to a increase in production cost, and shipping cost.
These breakdown into.

-Producing the energy.-Maintaining the network and its growth.

One thing on this I'll pick up on is, shipping costs have remained stable over the past 18months and infact shipping demand has dropped keeping prices down as there is a surplus of available market options (excess of vacancy on a vessel)

@ OP: Shale gas is a very harmful exploitation process based on current silenced disasters across the 'red zone' of your US of A so a word of caution reading or posting further into that. Watch a documentary entitled 'Gaslands' to see the results where locals sparcely habiting all experience toxic drinking water that is highly flammable from their water table as the bastard exploiters failed to maintain safety protocols in their drilling and mining techniques!

Renewables are very much viable on large scale basis, particularly when they are based on rapidly improving technologies and the profits made on them currently will be reinvested into future technologies, much like any marketing in any business, invest invest invest in the future for the future.. Non-carbon based fuels are now absolutely necessary for the foreseen life of our gem planet, regardless of any oil barons opinions otherwise, based on current scientific statistics of the atmosphere and oceans. (search the stats yourself, I now refuse to quote using any big multi-national 'merican search engine as they are all censors, [for another topic of debate])
Nuclear by far is the cleanest, safest (and yes including Chernobyl & Fukashima) and most economic option based on longterm results, yes the fuel can be dangerous when you look at it from a paranoid 'merican/western perspective of terrorism which the paranoia is terrorism on oneself [another side topic]

Reply to thread

click to sign in and post

Only registered members can share their thoughts. So come on! Join the community today (totally free - or sign in with your social account on the right) and join in the conversation.